The page you linked to says a Linux and a FreeBSD port are undergoing.
The linux compiler has worked at times and they went as far as writing a binary called owcc that takes standard posix flags for cc and executes wcc with the equivilant args. You can get working linux binaries and they will compile non trivial code if you try hard enough.
The point is that yes Watom lacks in some areas technically. However, and this is especially true on windows where it works great, it more of an issue of lack of interest that makes it a GCC alternative.
Auctually if I could write in C as well as him, I would do so more often. The problem is not him writing in C, its other people writing in C that are not as good as him. Do to the scope of his work, him writing in C does not lead to more bad C being written. So I'm auctually thankful he is coding in C.
That being said, he should encourage lesser programmers (including myself) to specifically not code in C.
...Wake me up when you're able to use PCC instead of GCC to do a 'make bzImage'
You bring up a good point. For years I have been looking for an open source compiler thats about the same quality as GCC, but is anything but GCC. I'm not too picky about the politics, as long as there a different set of politics from the GCC politics. I had great hope for Open Watcom, but the license was bad enough for debian to consider it non free, and they are not actively trying to be an alternative to GCC. Its quite a shame, but I really don't blame them. Technically Watcom is about ready for primetime on linux,they just need to get enough people to periodically try to compile there pet open source linux program with it and send a "I cant get this to work" mail to the list, but no one seems to care. PCC, on the other hand has a much larger set of people that have a reason to like PCC for reasons other than its not gcc./p>
but the real measure of bloat is would be if you wrote a simple text editor in QT and one in GTK, and made them both static executables, which executable would be bigger.
No - that doesn't really measure anything at all. Suppose the Foo version automatically pulled in 5x the functionality, network filesystems, subpixel antialiasing, native Linux, Windows, and Mac build options. Then suppose that the Bar version gets you antialiasing and the possibility to maybe compile it on another platform as long as you haven't used and system-specific features. Would you still call the first bloated if it was bigger after static compilation, or would you say it's more featureful?
Your absolutely right. However, I had to deal with a simpler definition of bloat. I think my definition was slightly more accurate than "bloat is how long it takes me to compile the gentoo package."
I never understood the point of these huge, monolithic libraries. They're a bitch to maintain & if you want to use an improved aspect in PART of the library (e.g. a better database interface), you often must upgrade ALL uses of the library that you might be happy with (e.g. the GUI). In Open Sources 2.0, Chris DiBona states "when developing, I like to use large libraries only when I either don't want to deal with a technology, or I don't fully understand it and don't feel qualified to implement it." It seems that many *nix hackers feel similarly about userland tools. So why is QT so popular?
QT, and similar all encompassing libraries are popular because they provide consistency and homeogenity. I still believe in third party libraries, but only if they bring something to the table. The fact is most of us use some wrapper around expat to deal with XML, and our development platforms standard database interface. What QT gives us is a single API. We simply get everyone to compile QT, and everyone can develop QT software.
Look at.NET and Java. They have two advantages over C++. The first is garbage collection, and the second is an all encompassing API. C++ tried to address this with the STL, but the STL only deals with thing like linked lists, hashtables, etc. QT and wxWidgets deal with higher level concerns, and therefore speed up development much more.
My recommendation is to run gentoo before saying things like that.
gtk is no walk in the park to compile, time-wise, but I guarantee you qt is a flipping nightmare to compile, such that I go out of my way to disable the qt* useflags. (Oh, yeah, and this is not a slow system, being a 2.4 GHz single core K8.)
This says qt is full of bloat relative to gtk. Why does gimp need so much cruft just to expose a window and some buttons? What gimp really needs isn't so much a UI redesign so much as native 16-bit component support (or dare we even ask for HDR?) now that everyone and his brother has RAW support on his camera.
Maybe its just full of useful classes? Assuming those classes are broken up into enough separate static and shared libraries, that does not translate into bloat for the qt programs.
Also GTK is only a graphics library. As opposed to QT, which has APIs for networking, database connections, etc. You can write conole programs in QT. Its about as easy as java or.NET, except you have to dofree whatever you new. So yes it will take longer to compile QT than GTK, but the real measure of bloat is would be if you wrote a simple text editor in QT and one in GTK, and made them both static executables, which executable would be bigger. Then you have to say which one was quicker to develop.
That's an interesting idea. If that's their game though, wouldn't they make more by painting the curb yellow (no parking), or making them handicapped spaces? Or how about those ridiculous signs with three different time slots + special days, describing when the meter is/isn't in effect? Yeah I have to say the Montreal parking signs are complex, and not just because I'm a monolingual American.
This is now even more promising: a Microsoft spec, Lotus Notes code and a Brooksian army of offshored developers! It's hard to imagine how this couldn't work!
Someone will get pissed off enough to fork and write something better. Everyone else will be pissed off enough to use it. Hence Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox. Of course, I'm just waiting for someone to port NeoOffice to GNUStep and GNUStep to Windows. Then OO will be freed from its Evil Sun/IBM masters, and oppressed by whoever jumps on that bandwagon.
BTW how is Brooksian (if you mean Fred Brooks the author of the Mythical Man Month) a bad thing.
Hating the French and Mexicans is high fashion among the Dixie Republicans and Midwesterners, I doubt they even know why.
. ..
Despite having lived in Atlanta for a number of years in the past, I was absolutely amazed to be subjected to this sort of hate.
All people are very closed minded, period. My coworker was a chemical engineer by training that started off in circuit board engineering and his dad owned a clothing factory. He's very anti globalization as he's seen many blue collar jobs get moved overseas. My girlfriend is a physical therapist from the Philippines. She worked for over a year in Newark at a clinic that got most of its business from ambulance chasers. As a result she dealt with a lot of poor minorities looking for large settlements. Guess what, she doesn't like illegal immigrants, or people that are on government entitlement programs, as these were the source of most of her stress. I grew up in Queens, and didn't drive until I was 23. Guess what, I'm a big fan of public transportation and urban living.
I happen to have been out of the USA, spent times in states beyond the North East seaboard, and know a little more about other cultures than most of my peers (many of which are New York Liberals that voted for Kerry). However, beyond that, I'm just as closed minded as anyone, including you. Xenophobia is a natural human trait.
BTW, I hate illegal immigration, having an insecure border, and the fact that it is so hard to come here legally for those that are qualified. I don't blame those that come illegally, but do believe we should enforce the laws, or totally open the borders. I'm in agreement with Newt's "English is the language of success in this country" views, but adamantly against having an official language in this country, as our founding fathers are against it. I don't hate the Mexican's, but do hate the French for the following reasons:
Living in a former British colony, and being of partial british decent, I have a cultural heritage that hates there cultural heritage.
They helped us in the war of independence, but partially because they don't like the British and were still made over the French and Indian war. However, we fought them in that war, and after the war of 1812 we allied ourselves with the British.
Regardless of circumstance, we had to save the French in two world wars. If they get attacked again I'd be all for saving there ass again, and would graciously accept them saving our ass if someone managed to kick our ass on our soil. However, at the moment the french are a socialists people who got there ass kicked by the Germans twice in the past hundred years and we, along with the English and others, helped save them.
Pfizer needs to actually create a single IT. They have so many different IT departments it is just crazy! All this while they are "creating one IT" and shipping our data centers to Costa Rica and other small areas of land surrounded by water.
I wouldn't outsource a datacenter to Costa Rica. However, I would hire people that have worked for online gambling sites in countries like Costa Rica. Those people know a few things ab out bandwidth shaping and security.
yea, you don't even need Lynx for https, us REAL hackers can just telnet to port 443 for https.
Next your going to claim you can decode MIME encoded jpegs in your head. This will lead to a browsing porn with telnet joke that will end in "all I see is blonde, brunette, redhead."
I picked a pair of countries where the governments are too poor to subsidize roads at all, or when they were rich, choose to put those funds into other things. This is no different than eliminating the subsidies outright.
There is an important difference. The US has the potential capital in private hands to privatize roads. Its government has enough capital to keep them government owned.
The best way to explain my views is to link to my favorite article from my favorite angry libertarian quaker..
I've always said the best way to destroy the faith of libertarians in the free market would be to enact a truly regulation-free market.
You wouldn't destroy there faith, just reform it. They would all realize that extreme libertarianism (a.k.a
anarco-capitalism) would not work, which is why they adopted
a view of libertarianism in the first place. The state is an evil, but a necessary evil.
By allowing taxpayers to pay directly for the destruction they do to the roads under our control while avoiding taxing for roads the state isn't responsible for maintaining (such as, if a Portland driver crosses the Columbia to Vancouver, we don't want to tax the miles driven in Washington State).
...
Not as much, we find, with the advent of hybrid and extremely high mileage engines.
Also the extra weight of heavy cargo and more passengers is taken into account with fuel consumption.
Heres where we get to kill two birds with one stone. Calculate the tax rate of fuel assuming everyone has an extremely fuel efficient vehicles. This will encourage people to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. Also, why those driving fuel efficient vehicles are paying less than there fair share, they are using less fuel. Since there is some evidence that were running out of crude, and that fuel emissions might have an effect on the envirorment, reducing these things are not bad. One of the things that a state controlled economy is supposed to do is say things like, "we can use a tax incentive to alter people behavior." This is why a hybrid car with a single occupant can use the HOV lane on the Long Island Expressway. There is no reduction in road wear, but a decrease in smog emissions.
Heavy cargo is already under this system, having long ago traded privacy for no fuel taxes. But the number of single passenger private vehicles that could carry four or more people is truly frightening.
I assume your determining vehicle weight by yearly weighing at inspection stations.
Yes, that's close enough for passenger vehicles. Cargo actually gets weighed when rolling down the road, if they've accepted the latest technology (if they haven't, there is a typical Weigh Station right next to the automated transponder reader).
Well the privacy issue is up for debate. There is no explicit constitutional right to privacy. There is an implicit one in the search and seizure and self incrimination clauses, but I don't believe in the living constitution. Also, what is a reasonable expectation of privacy has change greatly with technology. That being said, businesses are going to chose money over privacy every time, private individuals will lean the other way. As far as passing state borders, the Vancouver border probably benefits your state as gas is cheaper in this country and more people gas up on this side of the border. Although some people, like me, are strange. In New Jersey, like your state its illegal to pump your own gas. For this reason I try to gas up in NY before visiting my g/f in NJ every weekend even though the price of gas is higher in NY. I pay extra for the privilege of being trusted to operate a gas pump.
Actually, I prefer a slightly more decentralized economy than that, but it works out t
Mainly because the cost of maintaining even a gravel road is such that the grand majority of US towns would end up with impassable mud roads 9 months out of every year, or with incredibly dangerous rock based cliffside roadcuts, like Bolivia & Peru for the mountains, or for the plains states, Russia's Lena Freeway. That's what locally affordable roads look like.
You pick some really poor countries for your examples. You could still move subsidies down from the federal to state level, except for interstate and national railroads and get more control, while still having enough rich people to tax to help the poor people. The best way to explain my views is to link to my favorite article from my favorite angry libertarian quaker..
I work for Oregon Department of Transportation. We're trying to make this sort of thing more fair, by switching everybody to a GPS based weight/mile fee system instead of the current, which is fuel taxes. But there's a huge outcry against it- if for no other reason than what do you do at the borders of the state?
How much more fair does that make things, at the cost of a lot of privacy? There are road sensors and other methods of determining which roads are getting used and should get the money. Fuel is consumed relative to vehicle weight and mileage. Also the extra weight of heavy cargo and more passengers is taken into account with fuel consumption. I assume your determining vehicle weight by yearly weighing at inspection stations.
The problem with subsidies is they lead to undesirable behavior. Generally its agreed that more people should take public transportation and we should travel less. Well the best way to achieve that is to make people pay the full cost of doing so. Then tell big business "if you want your people to be able to go to work, introduce telecommuting or pay their tolls."
Big business will probably respond by forcing all workers to live in the building where they work....
I'd love a company dorm. There is a trailer park in waking distance of my job and that would be the place I would live had I not had cheap rent at the parents. I'd have to live in Suffolk county, but I could easily sell my car at that point. Under your idea of travel being totally wasteful, everyone would end up living in company towns anyway.
Well I'm all for more people taking the bus. I'd love to be able to take public transportation from my house in queens to my job in Bohemia, NY (~50 miles). However, Suffolk public transportation sucks. I know because I've done it in the past.
Then let me clarify- even the bus requires SIGNIFICANT governmental subsidy. ALL forms of mechanical transportation, ground, air, water and rail, require very large injections of government cash from time to time. NONE of them are viable from a for-profit free market model. This includes everything from the city bus system on up. But I've got to ask, just because life on the East Coast is so incredibly different from life on the west coast- what the heck are you doing living in NYC if your job is in Bohemia?
I am living in Queens for the following reasons: rent is cheap (my parents house), and the places have been to that I could tolerate living in are as follows: Manhattan, Queens, Bronx, Phillipines (in a city besides Manilla or Cebu), Montreal, Jersey city. I'd consider India, but I can't say as I've never been there. That list will get much smaller when I spawn of course for child rearing concerns (Queens, a small section of the Bronx and Montreal.)
The real question is why am I working in Bohemia. If given the choice I'd change jobs before leaving NYC. It was a matter of I had an opportunity, and the current state of the not so free market made living in Queens pretty affordable. Affordable as in make my car payments, pay rent, pay student loans, and be on track to retire in 20 years.
As far as subsidizing the buses. Yes I realize that all public transportation gets subsidies of some kind from the government. However, why does that subsidy have to be from the government, most especially the federal? Why can a town be in charge of its roads. Depending on the size, wealth, etc of the town it can determine how to pay for roads. In a rich suburban area each block can directly pay for its road. Poorer areas can look to those that own the storefronts to help subsidize costs. Most neighborhoods could not afford this, but they would be fine with dirt, gravel, or cobblestone, all of which require less maintenance and would force people like me to slow down when driving through neighborhoods.
I'm not necessarily for private roads, public roads allow commerce, so its necessary for market economics until the transporter gets invented. I'm also for fairer subsidy. We can make vehicle registration costs about 10-100x the price since there generally based on weight under the idea that you have to pay proportionally to your wear on the road (at leas in NYC where it will cost you about $40 for a car currently.) I'm also ok with a luxury/sin tax, where car owners subsidize people that take the bus. I believe this happens in NYC right now, I have to pay $9 to cross the Verizano bridge and its only $2 to take the subway or a bus. Capital expenses can be paid for via sale of bonds as they are now.
The problem with subsidies is they lead to undesirable behavior. Generally its agreed that more people should take public transportation and we should travel less. Well the best way to achieve that is to make people pay the full cost of doing so. Then tell big business "if you want your people to be able to go to work, introduce telecommuting or pay there tolls."
Also, how do we get computers across the country. Even if we start making CPUs in the US I think it would be most cost effective to concentrate production in one or two places.
Why? Why not create a machine th/pat can melt and build silicon chips at a molecular level, and have that all over the country, with downloadable designs?
Well, when we can do that we can each "print" our own chips. There has been progress in "3d" printing, but we are not yet. I'm pretty sure with the current state of technology, it cheaper to build them in centralized plants and ship them.
I'm actually interested in hearing about this. How much of that is security related, and how much income was generated by the September 11th security fee in 2006?
Actually, security is about the same in both industries- you don't think we allow unscreened passengers onto Amtrak after the incident in Spain, do you? But I think it's interesting that you think airline subsidies come out of the September 11th security fee, instead of the Federal Transportation budget (which is where Amtrak, Highway funds, and airline subsidies all come from).
Compare that with the amount spent on security in 2006 for Amtrak versus whatever security fees they have. Also, Amtrak runs its own police force. Do the airlines pay for their marshals?
Well, the model is different, but I'd suspect the airlines do pay for their own marshals through their taxes.
Personally I would be all for removing all subsidies from Air and Rail transportation.
Would you also agree to removing the subsidies from auto and truck transportation as well in that case?
Yes. Let me clarify below.
Since Amtrak is a quasi governmental private corporation, logistically this could be done. If this means that air travel becomes ridiculously expensive and rail travel gets cheaper
Actually, nowhere in the world is any form of transportation able to survive without some form of subsidy. Both air and rail travel would become ridiculously expensive- and the full price tolls on the roads would end automobile travel for all but the richest.5% of Americans.
Well I'm all for more people taking the bus. I'd love to be able to take public transportation from my house in queens to my job in Bohemia, NY (~50 miles). However, Suffolk public transportation sucks. I know because I've done it in the past.
How about making lunch for the steel workers? If I'm working a 16 hour shift and I'm single (been there done that although doing security and not producing "real value") I'd much buy my lunch than make it the night before. It makes economical sense to pay someone to do my laundry and cook my food if it means I can do a 12 or 16 hour shift instead of 8. Also, how exactly does a local McDonalds destroy local producers, other than other local restaurants. In my neighborhood there are plenty of local resturants, from McDonalds to $100+ a plate restaurants.
Actually, you'll find that all of your restaurants are actually Sysco Food Service Outlets if it's anything like the Portland Metro Area- they're only allowed about a 2% profit from that.
I'm pretty sure none of the restaurants in my neighborhood are Sysco Food Service Outlets. I worked in a summer camp whose food was supplied by Sysco in Alpine, NJ. Regardless, when I work long hours I buy food. This means I spend less time doing "chores."
Better than that- I want the government running railroads! Actually, the government might not drive the truck, but they spent over $2 million/mile to give that truck a road to run on....
And getting the corn from the farm to NYC is not productive?
For two reasons- one is that it's usually more efficient to put the people where the food is rather than trucking it hundreds of miles, and the other questioning whether ANYTHING goes on in NYC that is actually productive instead of just an overhead drain on society. No, trucking does not create a new product- and shipping in this day and age, except for a few rare earth metals, is just a waste of resources.
So would you consider posting to Slashdot productive? Also, how do we get computers across the country. Even if we start making CPUs in the US I think it would be most cost effective to concentrate production in one or two places.
There not doing such a great job with Amtrak.
Actually, when you consider the difference between the subsidy for Amtrak and the subsidy for the Airlines ($13 Billion vs $130 Billion in 2006) I think they're doing a wonderful job with Amtrak and that we'd be better off trading the subsidies around. The main problem with Amtrak is that they don't own their own trackage, except for one line on the Eastern Seaboard, which means that passenger trains have to play 2nd fiddle to freight trains. But given the age, this is as it should be.
I'm actually interested in hearing about this. How much of that is security related, and how much income was generated by the September 11th security fee in 2006? Compare that with the amount spent on security in 2006 for Amtrak versus whatever security fees they have. Also, Amtrak runs its own police force. Do the airlines pay for their marshals? Personally I would be all for removing all subsidies from Air and Rail transportation. Since Amtrak is a quasi governmental private corporation, logistically this could be done. If this means that air travel becomes ridiculously expensive and rail travel gets cheaper
Put aside the lawyers for a minute, all of these people provide real value.
Moving goods and bits of paper around is negative value that destroys local producers.
How about making lunch for the steel workers? If I'm working a 16 hour shift and I'm single (been there done that although doing security and not producing "real value") I'd much buy my lunch than make it the night before. It makes economical sense to pay someone to do my laundry and cook my food if it means I can do a 12 or 16 hour shift instead of 8. Also, how exactly does a local McDonalds destroy local producers, other than other local restaurants. In my neighborhood there are plenty of local resturants, from McDonalds to $100+ a plate restaurants.
Our entertainers, doctors and teachers all count as 'service' jobs. So are the graphic artists who design our toys and the advertisers who sell them to us. So are the truckers that bring us our food, the McMinions that cook it for us, and the lawyers that sue for us when we eat too much of it.
None of which actually CREATE goods- they just mess up the market with unproductive activities that are better done by government.
So you want the government driving trucks? And getting the corn from the farm to NYC is not productive? There not doing such a great job with Amtrak. Put aside the lawyers for a minute, all of these people provide real value.
>I've heard of people being 'caught' for simply being a foot past the stop line.
Over the line is in the intersection, or in the crosswalk.
You've never had your toes broken playing darts in a rowdy pub, have you?
Over the line is over the line. You ran the light.
I'd be more afraid of the taxi driver that just rear ended you, considers it your fault and is coming at you with a tire iron, then whoever you were playing darts with. The taxi driver has more money at stake than people involved in the dart game do. And BTW, in NYC I would consider it your fault if you stopped for a red and got rear ended. What works in one culture does not work in another.
When I play darts I keep my toes behind the line. When I drive on the highway and a cop is doing 80mph I do 80mph at a respectable distance behind him. When I see a light turn yellow there are several factors besides speed, and road conditions that determine my decision. The traffic behind and in front of me, the types of cars surrounding me (I'm running it if the car behind me is a taxi), etc etc. I'm usually looking 2-3 lights ahead of me in an urban area, and if I'm approaching a red light with cars stopped, I will select the lane that will get me over the line quickest.
If you want the state to create you a job move to China.
I'm not saying I'm for spending money for the purpose of "creating jobs." However, when you spend a lot of money you tend to create jobs. Now sometime you spend you money to hire a bunch of programmers or engineers to make better software/machines and in the end you have less jobs then you started with. However, even if the money saved on salaries ends up going into a savings account at 2% interest (I know its a really bad idea.), the bank will have more money to invest and have to hire more loan originators.
What printer actually *has* drivers for XP-64? Although I see the advantages of going w/ 64-bit OSes, the hardware/software support just isn't there yet - although it should be. And it is not MS's fault.
It depends... the Open Source community is quite willing to make its own drivers if the hardware specs are available. Can't we expect the same from Microsoft? At least for the "big brands"?
Besides, if Microsoft says "give us the specs or your hardware stays unsupported", I guess most hardware vendors will comply a lot faster than when the Linux community says the same;-)
The thing is generally vendors write the drivers and sometimes Microsoft distributes them with the OS. I don't think Microsoft write any print driver for physical hardware printers. Although I'm sure if they do a Slashdotter will correct me.
city of New York should pay for congestion pricing
actually, most of NYC's budget *does* come from its own taxes, tolls, and parking fees.
Yes, but I have issue with this one thing that does not. One would think that our Mayor, who btw really wants this to happen, has not thought of privately funding it. He's a lame duck, and has no chance of a presidential run in 2008. However, if his plan works he might have a shot in 2012. If not it will give him the "street cred" he will need to get the donations and government cooperation for private philanthropy that would put him on par with the robber barons of old..
yeah, and Boston should have paid for the Big Dig themselves....... but alas those booming local economies need federal money to make some roads.
And the city of New York should pay for congestion pricing, or apply for a loan from a private bank. If its supposed to be profitable, they should have no problem getting financing.
If we can raise private charitable money to rebuild homes in a city built below sea level, why can't we raise money to build bridges and the like? We can sell bonds or even stock in a corporation setup as the "bridge ad toll authority" so those financing such a project can share in its profits.
In my experience, not so good at fast searching (especially with wildcards) and lots of data, but I guess that all depends on your LDAP implementation.
Still, LDAP isn't a database. I know LDAP isn't a database, and while I've dealt with LDAP, I never had the opportunity to compare LDAP to a database in a meaningful way. Being its hard enough to get reasonable benchmarks for side by side database comparisons, or even something like file compression software, I doubt that will ever happen.
Slashdot Mirror
The linux compiler has worked at times and they went as far as writing a binary called owcc that takes standard posix flags for cc and executes wcc with the equivilant args. You can get working linux binaries and they will compile non trivial code if you try hard enough.
The point is that yes Watom lacks in some areas technically. However, and this is especially true on windows where it works great, it more of an issue of lack of interest that makes it a GCC alternative.
Auctually if I could write in C as well as him, I would do so more often. The problem is not him writing in C, its other people writing in C that are not as good as him. Do to the scope of his work, him writing in C does not lead to more bad C being written. So I'm auctually thankful he is coding in C.
That being said, he should encourage lesser programmers (including myself) to specifically not code in C.
...Wake me up when you're able to use PCC instead of GCC to do a 'make bzImage'You bring up a good point. For years I have been looking for an open source compiler thats about the same quality as GCC, but is anything but GCC. I'm not too picky about the politics, as long as there a different set of politics from the GCC politics. I had great hope for Open Watcom, but the license was bad enough for debian to consider it non free, and they are not actively trying to be an alternative to GCC. Its quite a shame, but I really don't blame them. Technically Watcom is about ready for primetime on linux,they just need to get enough people to periodically try to compile there pet open source linux program with it and send a "I cant get this to work" mail to the list, but no one seems to care. PCC, on the other hand has a much larger set of people that have a reason to like PCC for reasons other than its not gcc./p>
No - that doesn't really measure anything at all. Suppose the Foo version automatically pulled in 5x the functionality, network filesystems, subpixel antialiasing, native Linux, Windows, and Mac build options. Then suppose that the Bar version gets you antialiasing and the possibility to maybe compile it on another platform as long as you haven't used and system-specific features. Would you still call the first bloated if it was bigger after static compilation, or would you say it's more featureful?
Your absolutely right. However, I had to deal with a simpler definition of bloat. I think my definition was slightly more accurate than "bloat is how long it takes me to compile the gentoo package."
I never understood the point of these huge, monolithic libraries. They're a bitch to maintain & if you want to use an improved aspect in PART of the library (e.g. a better database interface), you often must upgrade ALL uses of the library that you might be happy with (e.g. the GUI). In Open Sources 2.0, Chris DiBona states "when developing, I like to use large libraries only when I either don't want to deal with a technology, or I don't fully understand it and don't feel qualified to implement it." It seems that many *nix hackers feel similarly about userland tools. So why is QT so popular?
QT, and similar all encompassing libraries are popular because they provide consistency and homeogenity. I still believe in third party libraries, but only if they bring something to the table. The fact is most of us use some wrapper around expat to deal with XML, and our development platforms standard database interface. What QT gives us is a single API. We simply get everyone to compile QT, and everyone can develop QT software.
Look at .NET and Java. They have two advantages over C++. The first is garbage collection, and the second is an all encompassing API. C++ tried to address this with the STL, but the STL only deals with thing like linked lists, hashtables, etc. QT and wxWidgets deal with higher level concerns, and therefore speed up development much more.
gtk is no walk in the park to compile, time-wise, but I guarantee you qt is a flipping nightmare to compile, such that I go out of my way to disable the qt* useflags. (Oh, yeah, and this is not a slow system, being a 2.4 GHz single core K8.)
This says qt is full of bloat relative to gtk. Why does gimp need so much cruft just to expose a window and some buttons? What gimp really needs isn't so much a UI redesign so much as native 16-bit component support (or dare we even ask for HDR?) now that everyone and his brother has RAW support on his camera.
Maybe its just full of useful classes? Assuming those classes are broken up into enough separate static and shared libraries, that does not translate into bloat for the qt programs.
Also GTK is only a graphics library. As opposed to QT, which has APIs for networking, database connections, etc. You can write conole programs in QT. Its about as easy as java or .NET, except you have to dofree whatever you new. So yes it will take longer to compile QT than GTK, but the real measure of bloat is would be if you wrote a simple text editor in QT and one in GTK, and made them both static executables, which executable would be bigger. Then you have to say which one was quicker to develop.
Someone will get pissed off enough to fork and write something better. Everyone else will be pissed off enough to use it. Hence Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox. Of course, I'm just waiting for someone to port NeoOffice to GNUStep and GNUStep to Windows. Then OO will be freed from its Evil Sun/IBM masters, and oppressed by whoever jumps on that bandwagon.
BTW how is Brooksian (if you mean Fred Brooks the author of the Mythical Man Month) a bad thing.
. .
Despite having lived in Atlanta for a number of years in the past, I was absolutely amazed to be subjected to this sort of
hate.
All people are very closed minded, period. My coworker was a chemical engineer by training that started off in circuit board engineering and his dad owned a clothing factory. He's very anti globalization as he's seen many blue collar jobs get moved overseas. My girlfriend is a physical therapist from the Philippines. She worked for over a year in Newark at a clinic that got most of its business from ambulance chasers. As a result she dealt with a lot of poor minorities looking for large settlements. Guess what, she doesn't like illegal immigrants, or people that are on government entitlement programs, as these were the source of most of her stress. I grew up in Queens, and didn't drive until I was 23. Guess what, I'm a big fan of public transportation and urban living.
I happen to have been out of the USA, spent times in states beyond the North East seaboard, and know a little more about other cultures than most of my peers (many of which are New York Liberals that voted for Kerry). However, beyond that, I'm just as closed minded as anyone, including you. Xenophobia is a natural human trait.
BTW, I hate illegal immigration, having an insecure border, and the fact that it is so hard to come here legally for those that are qualified. I don't blame those that come illegally, but do believe we should enforce the laws, or totally open the borders. I'm in agreement with Newt's "English is the language of success in this country" views, but adamantly against having an official language in this country, as our founding fathers are against it. I don't hate the Mexican's, but do hate the French for the following reasons:
I wouldn't outsource a datacenter to Costa Rica. However, I would hire people that have worked for online gambling sites in countries like Costa Rica. Those people know a few things ab out bandwidth shaping and security.
Next your going to claim you can decode MIME encoded jpegs in your head. This will lead to a browsing porn with telnet joke that will end in "all I see is blonde, brunette, redhead."
There is an important difference. The US has the potential capital in private hands to privatize roads. Its government has enough capital to keep them government owned.
The best way to explain my views is to link to my favorite article from my favorite angry libertarian quaker..
I've always said the best way to destroy the faith of libertarians in the free market would be to enact a truly regulation-free market.
You wouldn't destroy there faith, just reform it. They would all realize that extreme libertarianism (a.k.a anarco-capitalism) would not work, which is why they adopted a view of libertarianism in the first place. The state is an evil, but a necessary evil.
By allowing taxpayers to pay directly for the destruction they do to the roads under our control while avoiding taxing for roads the state isn't responsible for maintaining (such as, if a Portland driver crosses the Columbia to Vancouver, we don't want to tax the miles driven in Washington State).
...
Not as much, we find, with the advent of hybrid and extremely high mileage engines.
Also the extra weight of heavy cargo and more passengers is taken into account with fuel consumption.
Heres where we get to kill two birds with one stone. Calculate the tax rate of fuel assuming everyone has an extremely fuel efficient vehicles. This will encourage people to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. Also, why those driving fuel efficient vehicles are paying less than there fair share, they are using less fuel. Since there is some evidence that were running out of crude, and that fuel emissions might have an effect on the envirorment, reducing these things are not bad. One of the things that a state controlled economy is supposed to do is say things like, "we can use a tax incentive to alter people behavior." This is why a hybrid car with a single occupant can use the HOV lane on the Long Island Expressway. There is no reduction in road wear, but a decrease in smog emissions.
Heavy cargo is already under this system, having long ago traded privacy for no fuel taxes. But the number of single passenger private vehicles that could carry four or more people is truly frightening.
I assume your determining vehicle weight by yearly weighing at inspection stations.
Yes, that's close enough for passenger vehicles. Cargo actually gets weighed when rolling down the road, if they've accepted the latest technology (if they haven't, there is a typical Weigh Station right next to the automated transponder reader).
Well the privacy issue is up for debate. There is no explicit constitutional right to privacy. There is an implicit one in the search and seizure and self incrimination clauses, but I don't believe in the living constitution. Also, what is a reasonable expectation of privacy has change greatly with technology. That being said, businesses are going to chose money over privacy every time, private individuals will lean the other way. As far as passing state borders, the Vancouver border probably benefits your state as gas is cheaper in this country and more people gas up on this side of the border. Although some people, like me, are strange. In New Jersey, like your state its illegal to pump your own gas. For this reason I try to gas up in NY before visiting my g/f in NJ every weekend even though the price of gas is higher in NY. I pay extra for the privilege of being trusted to operate a gas pump.
Actually, I prefer a slightly more decentralized economy than that, but it works out t
You pick some really poor countries for your examples. You could still move subsidies down from the federal to state level, except for interstate and national railroads and get more control, while still having enough rich people to tax to help the poor people. The best way to explain my views is to link to my favorite article from my favorite angry libertarian quaker..
I work for Oregon Department of Transportation. We're trying to make this sort of thing more fair, by switching everybody to a GPS based weight/mile fee system instead of the current, which is fuel taxes. But there's a huge outcry against it- if for no other reason than what do you do at the borders of the state?How much more fair does that make things, at the cost of a lot of privacy? There are road sensors and other methods of determining which roads are getting used and should get the money. Fuel is consumed relative to vehicle weight and mileage. Also the extra weight of heavy cargo and more passengers is taken into account with fuel consumption. I assume your determining vehicle weight by yearly weighing at inspection stations.
The problem with subsidies is they lead to undesirable behavior. Generally its agreed that more people should take public transportation and we should travel less. Well the best way to achieve that is to make people pay the full cost of doing so. Then tell big business "if you want your people to be able to go to work, introduce telecommuting or pay their tolls."Big business will probably respond by forcing all workers to live in the building where they work....
I'd love a company dorm. There is a trailer park in waking distance of my job and that would be the place I would live had I not had cheap rent at the parents. I'd have to live in Suffolk county, but I could easily sell my car at that point. Under your idea of travel being totally wasteful, everyone would end up living in company towns anyway.
Then let me clarify- even the bus requires SIGNIFICANT governmental subsidy. ALL forms of mechanical transportation, ground, air, water and rail, require very large injections of government cash from time to time. NONE of them are viable from a for-profit free market model. This includes everything from the city bus system on up. But I've got to ask, just because life on the East Coast is so incredibly different from life on the west coast- what the heck are you doing living in NYC if your job is in Bohemia?
I am living in Queens for the following reasons: rent is cheap (my parents house), and the places have been to that I could tolerate living in are as follows: Manhattan, Queens, Bronx, Phillipines (in a city besides Manilla or Cebu), Montreal, Jersey city. I'd consider India, but I can't say as I've never been there. That list will get much smaller when I spawn of course for child rearing concerns (Queens, a small section of the Bronx and Montreal.)
The real question is why am I working in Bohemia. If given the choice I'd change jobs before leaving NYC. It was a matter of I had an opportunity, and the current state of the not so free market made living in Queens pretty affordable. Affordable as in make my car payments, pay rent, pay student loans, and be on track to retire in 20 years.
As far as subsidizing the buses. Yes I realize that all public transportation gets subsidies of some kind from the government. However, why does that subsidy have to be from the government, most especially the federal? Why can a town be in charge of its roads. Depending on the size, wealth, etc of the town it can determine how to pay for roads. In a rich suburban area each block can directly pay for its road. Poorer areas can look to those that own the storefronts to help subsidize costs. Most neighborhoods could not afford this, but they would be fine with dirt, gravel, or cobblestone, all of which require less maintenance and would force people like me to slow down when driving through neighborhoods.
I'm not necessarily for private roads, public roads allow commerce, so its necessary for market economics until the transporter gets invented. I'm also for fairer subsidy. We can make vehicle registration costs about 10-100x the price since there generally based on weight under the idea that you have to pay proportionally to your wear on the road (at leas in NYC where it will cost you about $40 for a car currently.) I'm also ok with a luxury/sin tax, where car owners subsidize people that take the bus. I believe this happens in NYC right now, I have to pay $9 to cross the Verizano bridge and its only $2 to take the subway or a bus. Capital expenses can be paid for via sale of bonds as they are now.
The problem with subsidies is they lead to undesirable behavior. Generally its agreed that more people should take public transportation and we should travel less. Well the best way to achieve that is to make people pay the full cost of doing so. Then tell big business "if you want your people to be able to go to work, introduce telecommuting or pay there tolls."
Why? Why not create a machine th/pat can melt and build silicon chips at a molecular level, and have that all over the country, with downloadable designs?
Well, when we can do that we can each "print" our own chips. There has been progress in "3d" printing, but we are not yet. I'm pretty sure with the current state of technology, it cheaper to build them in centralized plants and ship them.
I'm actually interested in hearing about this. How much of that is security related, and how much income was generated by the September 11th security fee in 2006?Actually, security is about the same in both industries- you don't think we allow unscreened passengers onto Amtrak after the incident in Spain, do you? But I think it's interesting that you think airline subsidies come out of the September 11th security fee, instead of the Federal Transportation budget (which is where Amtrak, Highway funds, and airline subsidies all come from).
Compare that with the amount spent on security in 2006 for Amtrak versus whatever security fees they have. Also, Amtrak runs its own police force. Do the airlines pay for their marshals?
Well, the model is different, but I'd suspect the airlines do pay for their own marshals through their taxes.
Personally I would be all for removing all subsidies from Air and Rail transportation.
Would you also agree to removing the subsidies from auto and truck transportation as well in that case?
Yes. Let me clarify below.
Since Amtrak is a quasi governmental private corporation, logistically this could be done. If this means that air travel becomes ridiculously expensive and rail travel gets cheaperActually, nowhere in the world is any form of transportation able to survive without some form of subsidy. Both air and rail travel would become ridiculously expensive- and the full price tolls on the roads would end automobile travel for all but the richest
Well I'm all for more people taking the bus. I'd love to be able to take public transportation from my house in queens to my job in Bohemia, NY (~50 miles). However, Suffolk public transportation sucks. I know because I've done it in the past.
How about making lunch for the steel workers? If I'm working a 16 hour shift and I'm single (been there done that although doing security and not producing "real value") I'd much buy my lunch than make it the night before. It makes economical sense to pay someone to do my laundry and cook my food if it means I can do a 12 or 16 hour shift instead of 8. Also, how exactly does a local McDonalds destroy local producers, other than other local restaurants. In my neighborhood there are plenty of local resturants, from McDonalds to $100+ a plate restaurants.Actually, you'll find that all of your restaurants are actually Sysco Food Service Outlets if it's anything like the Portland Metro Area- they're only allowed about a 2% profit from that.
I'm pretty sure none of the restaurants in my neighborhood are Sysco Food Service Outlets. I worked in a summer camp whose food was supplied by Sysco in Alpine, NJ. Regardless, when I work long hours I buy food. This means I spend less time doing "chores."
Better than that- I want the government running railroads! Actually, the government might not drive the truck, but they spent over $2 million/mile to give that truck a road to run on....
And getting the corn from the farm to NYC is not productive?
For two reasons- one is that it's usually more efficient to put the people where the food is rather than trucking it hundreds of miles, and the other questioning whether ANYTHING goes on in NYC that is actually productive instead of just an overhead drain on society. No, trucking does not create a new product- and shipping in this day and age, except for a few rare earth metals, is just a waste of resources.
So would you consider posting to Slashdot productive? Also, how do we get computers across the country. Even if we start making CPUs in the US I think it would be most cost effective to concentrate production in one or two places.
There not doing such a great job with Amtrak.
Actually, when you consider the difference between the subsidy for Amtrak and the subsidy for the Airlines ($13 Billion vs $130 Billion in 2006) I think they're doing a wonderful job with Amtrak and that we'd be better off trading the subsidies around. The main problem with Amtrak is that they don't own their own trackage, except for one line on the Eastern Seaboard, which means that passenger trains have to play 2nd fiddle to freight trains. But given the age, this is as it should be.
I'm actually interested in hearing about this. How much of that is security related, and how much income was generated by the September 11th security fee in 2006? Compare that with the amount spent on security in 2006 for Amtrak versus whatever security fees they have. Also, Amtrak runs its own police force. Do the airlines pay for their marshals? Personally I would be all for removing all subsidies from Air and Rail transportation. Since Amtrak is a quasi governmental private corporation, logistically this could be done. If this means that air travel becomes ridiculously expensive and rail travel gets cheaper
Put aside the lawyers for a minute, all of these people provide real value.
Moving goods and bits of paper around is negative value that destroys local producers.
How about making lunch for the steel workers? If I'm working a 16 hour shift and I'm single (been there done that although doing security and not producing "real value") I'd much buy my lunch than make it the night before. It makes economical sense to pay someone to do my laundry and cook my food if it means I can do a 12 or 16 hour shift instead of 8. Also, how exactly does a local McDonalds destroy local producers, other than other local restaurants. In my neighborhood there are plenty of local resturants, from McDonalds to $100+ a plate restaurants.
None of which actually CREATE goods- they just mess up the market with unproductive activities that are better done by government.
So you want the government driving trucks? And getting the corn from the farm to NYC is not productive? There not doing such a great job with Amtrak. Put aside the lawyers for a minute, all of these people provide real value.
>I've heard of people being 'caught' for simply being a foot past the stop line.
Over the line is in the intersection, or in the crosswalk.
You've never had your toes broken playing darts in a rowdy pub, have you?
Over the line is over the line. You ran the light.
I'd be more afraid of the taxi driver that just rear ended you, considers it your fault and is coming at you with a tire iron, then whoever you were playing darts with. The taxi driver has more money at stake than people involved in the dart game do. And BTW, in NYC I would consider it your fault if you stopped for a red and got rear ended. What works in one culture does not work in another.
When I play darts I keep my toes behind the line. When I drive on the highway and a cop is doing 80mph I do 80mph at a respectable distance behind him. When I see a light turn yellow there are several factors besides speed, and road conditions that determine my decision. The traffic behind and in front of me, the types of cars surrounding me (I'm running it if the car behind me is a taxi), etc etc. I'm usually looking 2-3 lights ahead of me in an urban area, and if I'm approaching a red light with cars stopped, I will select the lane that will get me over the line quickest.
I don't know why it bothers me so much that people think that formats have to be human readable - I think that's an unnecessary restriction.
I can send an email and get a web page with telnet. The web page thing is not especially beneficial, but talking to a SMTP server is.
Having an plain text format, or the option to convert to/from said format is a good idea when the data lends itself to it.
I'm not saying I'm for spending money for the purpose of "creating jobs." However, when you spend a lot of money you tend to create jobs. Now sometime you spend you money to hire a bunch of programmers or engineers to make better software/machines and in the end you have less jobs then you started with. However, even if the money saved on salaries ends up going into a savings account at 2% interest (I know its a really bad idea.), the bank will have more money to invest and have to hire more loan originators.
If it costs more money it creates more jobs.
It depends... the Open Source community is quite willing to make its own drivers if the hardware specs are available. Can't we expect the same from Microsoft? At least for the "big brands"?
Besides, if Microsoft says "give us the specs or your hardware stays unsupported", I guess most hardware vendors will comply a lot faster than when the Linux community says the same
The thing is generally vendors write the drivers and sometimes Microsoft distributes them with the OS. I don't think Microsoft write any print driver for physical hardware printers. Although I'm sure if they do a Slashdotter will correct me.
actually, most of NYC's budget *does* come from its own taxes, tolls, and parking fees.
Yes, but I have issue with this one thing that does not. One would think that our Mayor, who btw really wants this to happen, has not thought of privately funding it. He's a lame duck, and has no chance of a presidential run in 2008. However, if his plan works he might have a shot in 2012. If not it will give him the "street cred" he will need to get the donations and government cooperation for private philanthropy that would put him on par with the robber barons of old..
And the city of New York should pay for congestion pricing, or apply for a loan from a private bank. If its supposed to be profitable, they should have no problem getting financing.
If we can raise private charitable money to rebuild homes in a city built below sea level, why can't we raise money to build bridges and the like? We can sell bonds or even stock in a corporation setup as the "bridge ad toll authority" so those financing such a project can share in its profits.
Still, LDAP isn't a database. I know LDAP isn't a database, and while I've dealt with LDAP, I never had the opportunity to compare LDAP to a database in a meaningful way. Being its hard enough to get reasonable benchmarks for side by side database comparisons, or even something like file compression software, I doubt that will ever happen.